Madras HC Upholds AIADMK Defectors’ Resignations, Sets Two-Month Deadline to Decide Disqualification Pleas
The Madras High Court on Tuesday affirmed the decision of the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker’ to accept the resignations of six MLAs who joined the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party soon after being elected on an AIADMK ticket last year.
However, a Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice Arul Murugan also held that the acceptance of the resignations of the six MLAs has not made the pending disqualification proceedings against them academic or infructuous.
“The Speaker is still required to adjudicate on such pending disqualification proceedings. Depending on his findings, such disqualification would have the consequences flowing therefrom as prescribed under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) of the Constitution,” the Court said.
The Court then directed the Speaker to decide the pending disqualification proceedings against the six former AIADMK MLAs within two months.
The Bench passed the order on a plea filed by AIADMK leader and party Whip Agri Krishnamurthy challenging the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly’s decision to accept the resignation of six AIADMK MLAs – S Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel, P Sathyabama, Esakki Subbaya, C Vijaya Bhaskar and MR Vijayabhaskar.
The six MLAs had submitted their resignations after disobeying the AIADMK Whip and voting in favour of Chief Minister Joseph Vijay-led TVK government in the confidence motion moved in Assembly. All six MLAs were sworn-in to TVK soon after, and their resignations were accepted by the Speaker the same day.
Krishnamurthy had argued that the Speaker could not have accepted their resignations when the decision on disqualification proceedings against them was pending before him. Krishnamurthy submitted that the Speaker should have made an inquiry before accepting their resignations, and the inquiry made ought to have been a meaningful one especially since complaints regarding horse-trading and inducement were already made before him.
He also challenged notifications in the gazette declaring that the Assembly constituencies from where the six MLAs had contested were vacant. The plea stated that as per Article 190 of the Constitution, resignation of an MLA does not lead to automatic vacation of his seat. Prior to such vacation, the Speaker must be satisfied that the resignation was voluntary and genuine, among others.
The High Court today dismissed the plea. The Court held that resignation and disqualification are independent constitutional processes, and the fact that the Speaker had accepted their resignations did not prohibit him from initiating disqualification proceedings against them.
Attorney General Vijay Narayan appeared for the Speaker.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy with advocates KP Ananthakrishnan, Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, Yash S Vijay, T Mahendhran and Pranav Gopalakrishnan appeared for the six MLAs.
